Donald Trump’s inauguration team is allegedly having trouble finding “A-list” talent to perform at Trump’s swearing in ceremony come January. The reason? “They do not want to ‘normalize’ Trump’s presidency.” Hot Air’s Jazz Shaw explains why this is a stupid idea.

[This is] yet another example of the clueless nature of the L.A. crowd. They worked as their own billion dollar army to defeat Trump, hosting concerts and fundraisers along with showing up alongside Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail. We all saw how that worked out. I’m not sure how many more whacks with the clue bat will be required before it begins to sink in. The American people don’t need to be preached to by a bunch of pampered film stars or singers when it comes to how best to run the country or what our values should be. The astounding, er… ‘success’ of Miss Sloane on its opening weekend should tell them that nobody is listening other than the liberals who were already drinking the same Kool-Aid anyway.

He’s not wrong. If celebrities choose to boycott the inauguration, they’re demonstrating an inability to live in and deal with reality. Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States whether or not Elton John and company show up at his inauguration, so doubling down on the “we don’t want to ‘normalize’ Trump” rhetoric makes zero sense. What’s more problematic about this boycott, however, is that it’s a missed opportunity for these artists to expose their point of view to millions of people who wouldn’t normally be receptive to it.

Hollywood types aren’t the only creative forces attempting to get themselves as far away as they possibly can from anyone whose last name is Trump. Artists are angry that Ivanka Trump buys their very expensive paintings and displays them in her home.

“I think there are a lot of artists that are uncomfortable now being incorporated, or leveraged, as part of the Ivanka Trump brand,” art dealer Bill Powers told Bloomberg.

Artists and dealers alike have taken to Instagram to vent their frustrations. They’re reposting with angry messages from the artists photos of Ivanka standing beside works of art.

“Underneath a photo of Trump posing in front of a painting by Da Corte, the artist wrote: ‘Dear @Ivankatrump please get my work off of your walls. I am embarrassed to be seen with you,'” Bloomberg reports.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I thought the whole point of being an artist was to express ideas, thoughts, and perspectives through a medium that others can appreciate and enjoy, even those who think differently. These artists who are embarrassed their work hangs on Ivanka’s walls aren’t interested in influencing the environment of a soon-to-be leader. They want their creations to be displayed in a safe space to be admired by only those who agree with them and sheltered from the gazes of those who hold a different view. This attitude is not just cowardly, but also dumb, as they’re making themselves irrelevant to half the country.

This is probably a good time to remind everyone of Bruce Springsteen’s 1988 performance in East Berlin, which was, according to a man in attendance that night, “a nail in the coffin for East Germany.”

“I’m not here for any government,” Springsteen said onstage just a year before the Berlin Wall was destroyed. “I’ve come to play rock’n’roll for you in the hope that one day all the barriers will be torn down.”

To Hollywood elites who have wasted no time in comparing Trump to Putin, his inauguration is their Berlin Wall. To turn down a chance to perform at this upcoming historic moment is to turn down the chance to echo Springsteen’s sentiments to a nation of people who are so bitterly divided. They should rethink their boycotts and tantrums and instead do what they do best — perform and create.

Bre Payton is a staff writer at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter.

Four years ago Dave Eggers wrote ‘The Circle,’ a novel about a tech giant and social media company that destroys lives by eradicating privacy and our sense of personal identity. It’s starting to look increasingly like a work of nonfiction.

In the new book, ‘Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination,’ three authors debate the need to protect religious liberty from zealous LGBT advocates. It’s a civil debate, but the persecution of of people of faith over the issue remains as uncivil as ever.